It is a trend that even small grassroots nonprofits can become involved in, and this article from Nonprofit About.com is a good overview.
Even though I share the same skepticism about cause marketing as the article's author, for some nonprofits it is a natual fit and should be utilized.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“In what seems another life, I once taught a course about the history of American Consumerism. Although I tried not to turn the course into a rant about runaway consumerism and big business, I'm afraid it was pretty tough.
“As cause marketing came on the scene, I was cautious and reluctant, not sure anything good could come out of this "collusion" of cause and companies.
“However, if there was a battle to hold the line on cause marketing, it is clear that it has been lost. And maybe that is just as well. After all, if we want companies to be responsible (CSR), then it's hard not to accept cause marketing as part of the CSR mix.
“Plus, nonprofits and businesses have proved themselves to be very adept at blending marketing and causes. Causes have welcomed the promotional power that they otherwise would not have, and companies enjoy the "halo" affect for their products.
“What we reluctant cause shoppers can do is keep tabs on the trends, point out the differences between good cause marketing and bad, and push the field to more inclusiveness where small, local organizations have just as much of a shot at landing a business partner as do better branded, national nonprofits.
“Here are the trends that seem to dominate today's cause marketing scene:
“Trend #1: Growth
“The trend for cause marketing is definitely up and rosy. Cone Communications recently released the results of a global survey that found that consumers everywhere are on board:
• 81% of consumers around the world want companies to address key social and environmental issues; 93% say companies should go beyond just legal compliance to operate responsibly; and 94% expect companies to analyze and evolve their businesses to make their impact as positive as possible.”
Showing posts with label Fundraising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundraising. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Fundraising 2011
It has been a challenging period for nonprofit fundraising, so this article from Nonprofit About.com is a good overview of what some of the current research is telling us.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“I'm swearing off watching the stock market daily. I've decided to check in on my investments only once a month or so. I may even wait until the end of the year. That's because I'm getting a bad case of motion sickness watching the gyrations of the financial markets.
“Unfortunately, nonprofits can't ignore the fundraising tickers for their own organizations, nor for the sector as a whole. As dizzying as it sometimes seems, tracking the trends is part of the planning that must go on, whether it's for your end-of-year fundraising campaign, or looking out to 2012 and beyond.
“Over the past few weeks we've had a mountain of data come in via at least three surveys that leave us wondering what the trends really are.
“First up was the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's Nonprofit Report for Summer/Early Fall 2011. The Philanthropy Journal has a good summary of that survey, the upshot of which is that the fundraising climate is still tough.
“According to this survey, 44% of the nonprofits surveyed reported raising more in the first half of 2011, 20% raised less, and 25% raised the same amount. These figures are pretty close to the same figures for 2010, but are dramatically down from before the Great Recession.
“This week, the Chronicle of Philanthropy released an extensive survey of its Philanthropy 400. The list is made up of the 400 organizations that raise the most from private sources and are considered a bellwether for whence the sector goes. The Philanthropy 400 groups raise almost $1 of every $4 donated to charities in the US.
“The top 400 organizations did increase their donations by a median of 4.7% in 2011, much better than the 3.5% in 2010. However, that increase did not come close to overcoming the 11% decline they experienced in 2009. All in all, the report was pretty gloomy.”
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
“I'm swearing off watching the stock market daily. I've decided to check in on my investments only once a month or so. I may even wait until the end of the year. That's because I'm getting a bad case of motion sickness watching the gyrations of the financial markets.
“Unfortunately, nonprofits can't ignore the fundraising tickers for their own organizations, nor for the sector as a whole. As dizzying as it sometimes seems, tracking the trends is part of the planning that must go on, whether it's for your end-of-year fundraising campaign, or looking out to 2012 and beyond.
“Over the past few weeks we've had a mountain of data come in via at least three surveys that leave us wondering what the trends really are.
“First up was the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's Nonprofit Report for Summer/Early Fall 2011. The Philanthropy Journal has a good summary of that survey, the upshot of which is that the fundraising climate is still tough.
“According to this survey, 44% of the nonprofits surveyed reported raising more in the first half of 2011, 20% raised less, and 25% raised the same amount. These figures are pretty close to the same figures for 2010, but are dramatically down from before the Great Recession.
“This week, the Chronicle of Philanthropy released an extensive survey of its Philanthropy 400. The list is made up of the 400 organizations that raise the most from private sources and are considered a bellwether for whence the sector goes. The Philanthropy 400 groups raise almost $1 of every $4 donated to charities in the US.
“The top 400 organizations did increase their donations by a median of 4.7% in 2011, much better than the 3.5% in 2010. However, that increase did not come close to overcoming the 11% decline they experienced in 2009. All in all, the report was pretty gloomy.”
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Book Review. Giving 2.0
This is a petty good review of a new book, Giving 2.0: Transform Your Giving and Our World, by Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, which makes it sound worth a read and I have ordered it so will let you know what I think after I get a chance to take a look at it.
The review is from Nonprofit About.com.
An excerpt.
“Laura is well positioned to overview the current state of charitable giving and has played many roles within it...from founding a nonprofit to setting up family foundations to volunteering and meeting a wide range of givers, industry insiders, and social ventureneers of all types.
“Laura also understands the hearts of charitable people, no matter what their resources, pedigree, age, or position on the economic ladder. We all want the same things...to help, to make a difference, to bequeath a better world to our children.
“What I liked especially about Laura's book is that it fully engages with the web 2.0 world. It's hard to remember that this new world of online everything is only about a dozen years old. Yes, we were finding our way around it, in what now seem like unbelievably awkward ways, back in the 90s (remember paying by the minute to access the web through AOL?), but the online world as we now glide around it is relatively new.
“As the web has blossomed, so has the charitable world. Now nonprofits almost always have websites, and the number of giving "gateways" has grown to dozens from just a few only recently. It can be confusing for all of us, even as we love the variety and multitude of opportunities to give back.
“Laura takes all of that into account, addressing both traditional ways of planning and executing one's charitable giving and also how to do so using the tools of the online world.”
The review is from Nonprofit About.com.
An excerpt.
“Laura is well positioned to overview the current state of charitable giving and has played many roles within it...from founding a nonprofit to setting up family foundations to volunteering and meeting a wide range of givers, industry insiders, and social ventureneers of all types.
“Laura also understands the hearts of charitable people, no matter what their resources, pedigree, age, or position on the economic ladder. We all want the same things...to help, to make a difference, to bequeath a better world to our children.
“What I liked especially about Laura's book is that it fully engages with the web 2.0 world. It's hard to remember that this new world of online everything is only about a dozen years old. Yes, we were finding our way around it, in what now seem like unbelievably awkward ways, back in the 90s (remember paying by the minute to access the web through AOL?), but the online world as we now glide around it is relatively new.
“As the web has blossomed, so has the charitable world. Now nonprofits almost always have websites, and the number of giving "gateways" has grown to dozens from just a few only recently. It can be confusing for all of us, even as we love the variety and multitude of opportunities to give back.
“Laura takes all of that into account, addressing both traditional ways of planning and executing one's charitable giving and also how to do so using the tools of the online world.”
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Donor Service
This article from Nonprofit About.com begins with the too often practice of not thanking donors, something that should be done immediately regardless of how the donation came.
From my perspective, if an organization does not thank donors immediately and well, they virtually negate their foundational mission, within which their organizational mission is embedded, of community service.
An excerpt from the article.
“A friend donated a considerable amount of money through payroll deduction to her local public radio station. For that amount, she was supposed to receive a thermos with the station's logo on it.
“When she didn't receive the gift nor any kind of thank you from the station, she called and asked about it. The woman on the phone said, "Oh, well we don't send thank you's for donations through payroll deduction." She didn't know anything about the gift.
“That was it...no apology...no "Let me put you through to someone who can help." Apparently, they didn't send the advertised gift for payroll deduction donations either because it never came. Why payroll deduction would have made any difference at all is perplexing. My friend was so infuriated that she never gave another cent and has plenty to say about the radio station whenever possible.
“I suspect that the woman my friend spoke to did not know what she was talking about, and that if the development department had known about the conversation they would be horrified.
“Overall there was a disconnect on several levels. What is their policy on thank you's? Is there a glitch in the fulfillment process that resulted in the gift not being sent? Why hadn't the woman on the phone been properly trained so that she knew the policies and what to do when her help was not enough? Why did she not appreciate the importance of a donor call such as that one?”
From my perspective, if an organization does not thank donors immediately and well, they virtually negate their foundational mission, within which their organizational mission is embedded, of community service.
An excerpt from the article.
“A friend donated a considerable amount of money through payroll deduction to her local public radio station. For that amount, she was supposed to receive a thermos with the station's logo on it.
“When she didn't receive the gift nor any kind of thank you from the station, she called and asked about it. The woman on the phone said, "Oh, well we don't send thank you's for donations through payroll deduction." She didn't know anything about the gift.
“That was it...no apology...no "Let me put you through to someone who can help." Apparently, they didn't send the advertised gift for payroll deduction donations either because it never came. Why payroll deduction would have made any difference at all is perplexing. My friend was so infuriated that she never gave another cent and has plenty to say about the radio station whenever possible.
“I suspect that the woman my friend spoke to did not know what she was talking about, and that if the development department had known about the conversation they would be horrified.
“Overall there was a disconnect on several levels. What is their policy on thank you's? Is there a glitch in the fulfillment process that resulted in the gift not being sent? Why hadn't the woman on the phone been properly trained so that she knew the policies and what to do when her help was not enough? Why did she not appreciate the importance of a donor call such as that one?”
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Bequest Giving
It is generally something that is utilized only by large nonprofits, but has great relevance for small organizations with tight organizational structure and controls.
This article from Contributions Magazine examines what you need to do to start.
An excerpt.
“More and more organizations are using bequest societies to promote their bequest programs.
“In essence, a bequest society is simply a way to encourage and thank donors for their willingness to support your organization by naming you in their will.
“Creating a name
“Typical names for bequest societies include The Heritage Society, The Legacy Society, or even, more simply, The Bequest Society. Any of these are fine. However, you may want a name that accentuates your organization’s history or even a past bequest donor. For example:
• The 1914 Society: The organization’s incorporation date
• The Broad Street Society: Location of the facility
• The William Jones Society: Founder of the organization
“Some other names we’ve come across include: The Path Finders, Lamplighters Guild, The Circle of Concern, Dream Builders, and Friends for Life.
“The bequest society brochure
“A well-done brochure introducing your bequest society will often serve as your best means of communication with prospects. The brochure should include your case for support (or an abridged version of it); some brief, interesting history of your organization; and a return card allowing donors to request more information or notify you of their intent to leave a bequest.
“Make sure your inaugural publication has a shelf life of one to two years since you’ll often want to use it as a “leave-behind” piece for visits with potential donors.
“In your brochure, you’ll want to include the following:
1. Your bequest society’s name
2. How to make a bequest to your organization
3. Whom to contact for more information
4. A way for the reader to respond (postcard, self-addressed envelope)
5. An invitation to join the society (sometimes this is forgotten!)
“You may also want to include a brief letter from your president or executive director introducing the brochure and the new program.
“Your brochure needn’t be as elaborate, provided it includes the five key components we cited above.”
This article from Contributions Magazine examines what you need to do to start.
An excerpt.
“More and more organizations are using bequest societies to promote their bequest programs.
“In essence, a bequest society is simply a way to encourage and thank donors for their willingness to support your organization by naming you in their will.
“Creating a name
“Typical names for bequest societies include The Heritage Society, The Legacy Society, or even, more simply, The Bequest Society. Any of these are fine. However, you may want a name that accentuates your organization’s history or even a past bequest donor. For example:
• The 1914 Society: The organization’s incorporation date
• The Broad Street Society: Location of the facility
• The William Jones Society: Founder of the organization
“Some other names we’ve come across include: The Path Finders, Lamplighters Guild, The Circle of Concern, Dream Builders, and Friends for Life.
“The bequest society brochure
“A well-done brochure introducing your bequest society will often serve as your best means of communication with prospects. The brochure should include your case for support (or an abridged version of it); some brief, interesting history of your organization; and a return card allowing donors to request more information or notify you of their intent to leave a bequest.
“Make sure your inaugural publication has a shelf life of one to two years since you’ll often want to use it as a “leave-behind” piece for visits with potential donors.
“In your brochure, you’ll want to include the following:
1. Your bequest society’s name
2. How to make a bequest to your organization
3. Whom to contact for more information
4. A way for the reader to respond (postcard, self-addressed envelope)
5. An invitation to join the society (sometimes this is forgotten!)
“You may also want to include a brief letter from your president or executive director introducing the brochure and the new program.
“Your brochure needn’t be as elaborate, provided it includes the five key components we cited above.”
Friday, September 23, 2011
Fundraising Strategies
The bottom-line in any effective fundraising strategy is communication.
Communicating with your donor community, communicating with the larger community, communicating what it is about your mission that is important and how you are fulfilling it, and this article from Communications Magazine is excellent.
An excerpt.
“You’ve done your homework. You know your pitch. You believe in your mission, and understand the reasons donors give your organization. Even so, you may feel that your fundraising has plateaued… that you’re stuck in a rut or missing out on key giving opportunities. Many times, you may simply feel a sense of malaise – that no matter how much you try, you aren’t leveling up.
“Today, we offer you nine great ideas for powering back on, and taking your fundraising game to a whole new level:
“1. Turn off the Computer and Pick up the Phone
The next time you are getting ready to send out an e-mail, I want you to stop – turn off the computer – and pick up the phone. Instead of e-mailing that donor, prospect, board member or community leader, pick up the phone and call. It’s far more personal and has lasting positive effects on the relationship.
“2. Join a New Networking Organization
Running out of new people to talk with about your organization? Join a new networking group. It could be a local chamber of commerce, the Kiwanis club, your college alumni association, a business group… whatever it is, join and start going to meetings to connect with more people.
“3. Jump on Social Networks with Renewed Vigor
You may have started that Twitter account, LinkedIn Group or Facebook company page with the best of intentions, but as time went on, your interest may have waned, you got discouraged, or simply stopped participating. Now is the time to reengage!
“4. Listen to Your Staff and Volunteers
When was the last time you asked for – and listened to – new fundraising ideas from your staff and volunteers? Get them into the room and ask them for ideas: What should we try? Who should we talk to? What can I do to help you?
“5. Take Your 5 Smallest Donors Out to Lunch
Everyone takes their biggest donors out to networking lunches – and you should too – but have you thought about taking your 5 smallest donors out to lunch? You know, those old ladies who give $50 a year to your annual appeal or those young professionals right out of college who give $25 because they saw an ad for your organization online? Call ‘em up, take ‘em out to lunch, and see what motivates them to give. Maybe they could give more? Maybe they have friends who would want to give? Maybe they will just be shocked that you called… It was only $25 after all!”
Communicating with your donor community, communicating with the larger community, communicating what it is about your mission that is important and how you are fulfilling it, and this article from Communications Magazine is excellent.
An excerpt.
“You’ve done your homework. You know your pitch. You believe in your mission, and understand the reasons donors give your organization. Even so, you may feel that your fundraising has plateaued… that you’re stuck in a rut or missing out on key giving opportunities. Many times, you may simply feel a sense of malaise – that no matter how much you try, you aren’t leveling up.
“Today, we offer you nine great ideas for powering back on, and taking your fundraising game to a whole new level:
“1. Turn off the Computer and Pick up the Phone
The next time you are getting ready to send out an e-mail, I want you to stop – turn off the computer – and pick up the phone. Instead of e-mailing that donor, prospect, board member or community leader, pick up the phone and call. It’s far more personal and has lasting positive effects on the relationship.
“2. Join a New Networking Organization
Running out of new people to talk with about your organization? Join a new networking group. It could be a local chamber of commerce, the Kiwanis club, your college alumni association, a business group… whatever it is, join and start going to meetings to connect with more people.
“3. Jump on Social Networks with Renewed Vigor
You may have started that Twitter account, LinkedIn Group or Facebook company page with the best of intentions, but as time went on, your interest may have waned, you got discouraged, or simply stopped participating. Now is the time to reengage!
“4. Listen to Your Staff and Volunteers
When was the last time you asked for – and listened to – new fundraising ideas from your staff and volunteers? Get them into the room and ask them for ideas: What should we try? Who should we talk to? What can I do to help you?
“5. Take Your 5 Smallest Donors Out to Lunch
Everyone takes their biggest donors out to networking lunches – and you should too – but have you thought about taking your 5 smallest donors out to lunch? You know, those old ladies who give $50 a year to your annual appeal or those young professionals right out of college who give $25 because they saw an ad for your organization online? Call ‘em up, take ‘em out to lunch, and see what motivates them to give. Maybe they could give more? Maybe they have friends who would want to give? Maybe they will just be shocked that you called… It was only $25 after all!”
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Retaining & Creating Donors
Very good advice from Contributions Magazine.
An excerpt.
“Why is it that fund raisers don’t have time to devote to building relationships with their most promising donors? Often it is because they are busy organizing galas, awards dinners, or other events that are expected to raise big bucks and bring in new “heavy hitters” but somehow always fall short of expectations. Here are some tips for keeping the focus on donor stewardship when you plan your next event.
"1. Respect your donors
The people who support your organization are motivated by some combination of belief in your mission, respect for the person who introduced you to them, and excitement about your organizational personality. When you get a gift before, during, or after an event, remember that it was an actual person who wrote that check.
"2. Use your event to focus on your mission
Every step of your event – invitations, program books, speeches, party favors, thank you notes – gives you the chance to cement the connection between your donors and the missions that they make possible. Tug some heart strings. Tell some tear-jerking stories. Make the mission come to life.
"3. Do not indulge in excess party planning
Keep it simple. Minimize every celebratory flourish that does NOT connect your donors and partners with your mission. Don’t break a sweat about the color of the napkins.
"4. Use the event to enlarge your family
A mission-focused event is a great way to engage new people. Don’t get hung up on the price of a ticket. If it will benefit your organization in the long run to have someone get introduced, find a way to invite him or her as the guest of the executive director. Or of a board member.”
An excerpt.
“Why is it that fund raisers don’t have time to devote to building relationships with their most promising donors? Often it is because they are busy organizing galas, awards dinners, or other events that are expected to raise big bucks and bring in new “heavy hitters” but somehow always fall short of expectations. Here are some tips for keeping the focus on donor stewardship when you plan your next event.
"1. Respect your donors
The people who support your organization are motivated by some combination of belief in your mission, respect for the person who introduced you to them, and excitement about your organizational personality. When you get a gift before, during, or after an event, remember that it was an actual person who wrote that check.
"2. Use your event to focus on your mission
Every step of your event – invitations, program books, speeches, party favors, thank you notes – gives you the chance to cement the connection between your donors and the missions that they make possible. Tug some heart strings. Tell some tear-jerking stories. Make the mission come to life.
"3. Do not indulge in excess party planning
Keep it simple. Minimize every celebratory flourish that does NOT connect your donors and partners with your mission. Don’t break a sweat about the color of the napkins.
"4. Use the event to enlarge your family
A mission-focused event is a great way to engage new people. Don’t get hung up on the price of a ticket. If it will benefit your organization in the long run to have someone get introduced, find a way to invite him or her as the guest of the executive director. Or of a board member.”
Monday, September 19, 2011
Donation Statistics
The ongoing difficulty raising funds is reported in an article from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, with links at the jump.
An excerpt.
“Charities are barely raising enough money from new and repeat donors to keep up with the losses from people who have stopped giving, according to a new study of donor records for 2,377 charities.
“In total, the charities in the study raised more than $1.6-billion last year. But for every $5.35 that they received in donations, they lost $5.54 from donors who gave less or stopped giving altogether.
“As a result, contributions fell by an average of 1.9 percent.
“That finding, however, shows improvement over the previous two years, when the charities fell even further behind in contributions.
“The charities in the study lost an average of 17.7 percent in contributions during 2009 after flat returns the year before.
“The charities in the study also did better in increasing the number of people who support their organizations, with an average 1.7-percent increase in supporters, compared with a 2.2-percent loss in 2009.
“Charities are not paying enough attention to retaining the donors that they worked so hard to get in previous years,” said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, which released the study with the Association of Fundraising Professionals. “Nonprofits have to get better at telling current donors what they’ve accomplished and building that connection that will last.”
An excerpt.
“Charities are barely raising enough money from new and repeat donors to keep up with the losses from people who have stopped giving, according to a new study of donor records for 2,377 charities.
“In total, the charities in the study raised more than $1.6-billion last year. But for every $5.35 that they received in donations, they lost $5.54 from donors who gave less or stopped giving altogether.
“As a result, contributions fell by an average of 1.9 percent.
“That finding, however, shows improvement over the previous two years, when the charities fell even further behind in contributions.
“The charities in the study lost an average of 17.7 percent in contributions during 2009 after flat returns the year before.
“The charities in the study also did better in increasing the number of people who support their organizations, with an average 1.7-percent increase in supporters, compared with a 2.2-percent loss in 2009.
“Charities are not paying enough attention to retaining the donors that they worked so hard to get in previous years,” said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, which released the study with the Association of Fundraising Professionals. “Nonprofits have to get better at telling current donors what they’ve accomplished and building that connection that will last.”
Monday, August 29, 2011
Yes, Tax Increases as a Default Solution
Which is the answer to the question the Sacramento Bee editorial poses “is anything sadder than padlocked pools”.
The other answer presented by the editorial, to give money to the government nonprofit, doesn’t work so well since people have became somewhat questioning with government’s ability to manage money and public services efficiently.
An excerpt from the editorial.
“Swim time is almost over at Sacramento's public pools.
“Only six of 13 city pools opened this summer, and they'll all be closed for the season by Labor Day. Next summer, only three pools are to open. In a city of 466,000, that's a disgrace even in these hard times.
“City Hall needs all the help it can get to keep pools open. But by not asking loudly enough and by not making donations easier, the city is missing out on a potential lifeline.
“Jonathan Rewers, chairman of the city's Parks and Recreation Commission, says the city needs to do a better job of telling the community that public pools are a "vital service." They are also smart policy: If kids aren't frolicking in pools, they could be getting in trouble on the street.
“This is a prime opportunity for a civic-minded corporation to make a sizable gift that would buy priceless good will. Some feelers have gone out, but with no success.
“The city also ought to have a formal matching donation program. If a neighborhood association raises a significant sum – say at least half the $100,000 it costs to run a city pool for a year – the city should come up with the rest.
“Rewers says the city needs to better publicize the donation programs that do exist.
“Gifts to Share, the city's 26-year-old nonprofit partner, is the conduit through which residents, businesses and community groups can support parks and recreation, cultural, education and neighborhood improvement projects. More than $1.2 million went through it last year….
“Rewers and other parks advocates are pushing for a citywide property tax assessment for parks maintenance, including pools, on the 2012 ballot. Residents would get to decide how important keeping up parks and keeping open pools is to them.”
The other answer presented by the editorial, to give money to the government nonprofit, doesn’t work so well since people have became somewhat questioning with government’s ability to manage money and public services efficiently.
An excerpt from the editorial.
“Swim time is almost over at Sacramento's public pools.
“Only six of 13 city pools opened this summer, and they'll all be closed for the season by Labor Day. Next summer, only three pools are to open. In a city of 466,000, that's a disgrace even in these hard times.
“City Hall needs all the help it can get to keep pools open. But by not asking loudly enough and by not making donations easier, the city is missing out on a potential lifeline.
“Jonathan Rewers, chairman of the city's Parks and Recreation Commission, says the city needs to do a better job of telling the community that public pools are a "vital service." They are also smart policy: If kids aren't frolicking in pools, they could be getting in trouble on the street.
“This is a prime opportunity for a civic-minded corporation to make a sizable gift that would buy priceless good will. Some feelers have gone out, but with no success.
“The city also ought to have a formal matching donation program. If a neighborhood association raises a significant sum – say at least half the $100,000 it costs to run a city pool for a year – the city should come up with the rest.
“Rewers says the city needs to better publicize the donation programs that do exist.
“Gifts to Share, the city's 26-year-old nonprofit partner, is the conduit through which residents, businesses and community groups can support parks and recreation, cultural, education and neighborhood improvement projects. More than $1.2 million went through it last year….
“Rewers and other parks advocates are pushing for a citywide property tax assessment for parks maintenance, including pools, on the 2012 ballot. Residents would get to decide how important keeping up parks and keeping open pools is to them.”
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Online Donations
A good article from Nonprofit About.com for those organizations whose websites offer this.
An excerpt.
“All the great marketing copy, email solicitations, and earnest pleadings can and do fail once a donor gets to the donation page on your website.
“It happens to all of us all the time. Just think of the times you've abandoned your shopping cart at your favorite online shopping sites. Somehow, we just don't convert to being an actual buyer. The same thing happens with your donation page. It might not get the would-be donor over that leap of faith to the actual donation.
“Convio, a leading supplier of donor software to nonprofits, and Donordigital, a consultancy specializing in online fundraising, recently explored the factors that might influence a would-be donor to become an actual donor once he or she lands on your web donation form.
“In "Beyond Best Practices," a study of the donation pages of seven large nonprofits, the two companies tweaked and tested a number of donor page elements. The goal was to determine how to improve the user experience for existing audiences on donation landing pages to increase conversion.
“According to the researchers, "...a typical web donation page that has never been tested converts less than 15 percent of the visitors that reach it." Just think of the money your organization might be leaving on the table by not testing your donation page.
“The Convio/Donordigital study found that there was no "single set of changes to a donation form...that's guaranteed to work for every organization." However it did reveal the elements on those forms that most influence conversion. Just knowing that could make your own testing easier.”
An excerpt.
“All the great marketing copy, email solicitations, and earnest pleadings can and do fail once a donor gets to the donation page on your website.
“It happens to all of us all the time. Just think of the times you've abandoned your shopping cart at your favorite online shopping sites. Somehow, we just don't convert to being an actual buyer. The same thing happens with your donation page. It might not get the would-be donor over that leap of faith to the actual donation.
“Convio, a leading supplier of donor software to nonprofits, and Donordigital, a consultancy specializing in online fundraising, recently explored the factors that might influence a would-be donor to become an actual donor once he or she lands on your web donation form.
“In "Beyond Best Practices," a study of the donation pages of seven large nonprofits, the two companies tweaked and tested a number of donor page elements. The goal was to determine how to improve the user experience for existing audiences on donation landing pages to increase conversion.
“According to the researchers, "...a typical web donation page that has never been tested converts less than 15 percent of the visitors that reach it." Just think of the money your organization might be leaving on the table by not testing your donation page.
“The Convio/Donordigital study found that there was no "single set of changes to a donation form...that's guaranteed to work for every organization." However it did reveal the elements on those forms that most influence conversion. Just knowing that could make your own testing easier.”
Friday, August 5, 2011
Corporate Philanthropy
It is an avenue too few grassroots nonprofits tackle but it can be a very supportive one, and this paper from Harvard Business Weekly reports on a recent paper examining it.
An excerpt.
“Analyzing several Fortune 500 firms over the period of 10 years, Christopher Marquis and Matthew Lee discuss the factors that influence corporate philanthropy, using the subject to theorize about and test how structural features of organizations help senior leaders to shape firm strategy. Key concepts include:
• Many practitioners today view corporate philanthropy as a strategic activity that addresses both social and economic goals.
• Corporate philanthropy is highest in corporations with new CEOs, and decreases with the length of CEO tenure.
• The greater the proportion of female senior managers in a company, the greater the corporate philanthropic contributions will be.
• Companies with larger boards tend to have higher philanthropic contributions.
Abstract
“We examine how organizational structure influences strategies over which corporate leaders have significant discretion. Corporate philanthropy is our setting to study how a differentiated structural element, the corporate foundation, constrains the influence of individual senior managers and directors on corporate strategy. Our analysis of Fortune 500 firms from 1996 to 2006 shows that leader characteristics at both the senior management and director levels affect corporate philanthropic contributions. We also find that organizational structure constrains the philanthropic influence of board members, but not senior managers, a result that is contrary to what existing theory would predict. We discuss how these findings advance understanding of how organizational structure and corporate leadership interact, and how organizations can more effectively realize the strategic value of corporate social responsibility activities.”
An excerpt.
“Analyzing several Fortune 500 firms over the period of 10 years, Christopher Marquis and Matthew Lee discuss the factors that influence corporate philanthropy, using the subject to theorize about and test how structural features of organizations help senior leaders to shape firm strategy. Key concepts include:
• Many practitioners today view corporate philanthropy as a strategic activity that addresses both social and economic goals.
• Corporate philanthropy is highest in corporations with new CEOs, and decreases with the length of CEO tenure.
• The greater the proportion of female senior managers in a company, the greater the corporate philanthropic contributions will be.
• Companies with larger boards tend to have higher philanthropic contributions.
Abstract
“We examine how organizational structure influences strategies over which corporate leaders have significant discretion. Corporate philanthropy is our setting to study how a differentiated structural element, the corporate foundation, constrains the influence of individual senior managers and directors on corporate strategy. Our analysis of Fortune 500 firms from 1996 to 2006 shows that leader characteristics at both the senior management and director levels affect corporate philanthropic contributions. We also find that organizational structure constrains the philanthropic influence of board members, but not senior managers, a result that is contrary to what existing theory would predict. We discuss how these findings advance understanding of how organizational structure and corporate leadership interact, and how organizations can more effectively realize the strategic value of corporate social responsibility activities.”
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Fundraising Methods
A good report on those which worked best in 2010, from Guidestar.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
Which fundraising methods worked best in 2010? Which weren't that effective? What can you do this year to build on last year's successes?
GuideStar's new report, "The Fundraising Methods That Worked Best in 2010—and Could Work Best in 2011," draws on the results of the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's 2010 Fundraising Survey (GuideStar is a member of the collaborative) to answer these questions.
An excerpt, with links at the jump.
Which fundraising methods worked best in 2010? Which weren't that effective? What can you do this year to build on last year's successes?
GuideStar's new report, "The Fundraising Methods That Worked Best in 2010—and Could Work Best in 2011," draws on the results of the Nonprofit Research Collaborative's 2010 Fundraising Survey (GuideStar is a member of the collaborative) to answer these questions.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Nonprofit Revenue Sources
An excellent overview of the various sources of funding, from Nonprofit About.com, with several great links at the jump.
An excerpt.
“What your nonprofit does--your programs--is the highest priority for any nonprofit manager. Revenue generation is the second.
“New ways for nonprofits to raise revenue spring into existence every year, but where those funds come from stays pretty much the same year after year. There is also a basic inventory of methods that should form the back bone of your fundraising efforts. These are, literally, your "bread and butter."
“So, where do nonprofits get their revenue?
• Individuals are the largest source of funding for nonprofit organizations. According to Giving USA, total charitable giving in the U.S. reached more than $303 billion in 2009. Of that amount 75% came from individuals.
• Corporations give in order to get...exposure, publicity, community respect, market share. Their funding is more episodic, revolving around particular campaigns, events, and projects. Corporate funding can be a good source of support for new initiatives, special programs, and special events. Look for opportunities to form partnerships for sponsorships and cause-related marketing.
• Federal, State and Local Governments. Many nonprofit institutions benefit from all levels of government. Obvious examples are public education, higher education, and the public media. Federal, state, and local government grants fund many programs provided by nonprofits, especially in areas such as urban human service nonprofits, and healthcare. Grants.gov provides up-to-date information and a directory of federal grants.”
An excerpt.
“What your nonprofit does--your programs--is the highest priority for any nonprofit manager. Revenue generation is the second.
“New ways for nonprofits to raise revenue spring into existence every year, but where those funds come from stays pretty much the same year after year. There is also a basic inventory of methods that should form the back bone of your fundraising efforts. These are, literally, your "bread and butter."
“So, where do nonprofits get their revenue?
• Individuals are the largest source of funding for nonprofit organizations. According to Giving USA, total charitable giving in the U.S. reached more than $303 billion in 2009. Of that amount 75% came from individuals.
• Corporations give in order to get...exposure, publicity, community respect, market share. Their funding is more episodic, revolving around particular campaigns, events, and projects. Corporate funding can be a good source of support for new initiatives, special programs, and special events. Look for opportunities to form partnerships for sponsorships and cause-related marketing.
• Federal, State and Local Governments. Many nonprofit institutions benefit from all levels of government. Obvious examples are public education, higher education, and the public media. Federal, state, and local government grants fund many programs provided by nonprofits, especially in areas such as urban human service nonprofits, and healthcare. Grants.gov provides up-to-date information and a directory of federal grants.”
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Thank You Letters
I am continually amazed at how many nonprofit organizations do not send thank you letters.
I would estimate that perhaps 30-40% of the organizations I have donated to over the years have not responded with a personal thank you letter.
It is absolutely crucial to do so, as this article from Nonprofit About.Com notes, with all the links at the jump.
An excerpt.
“Your thank you letter to a donor concludes one transaction but, more importantly, it is a bridge to future support. Get the thank you letter right, and you are well on your way to future fundraising success. Here are 10 tips for making that thank you letter just right. For more tips, I recommend Sandy Rees' Deepen Donor Relationships With a Power-Packed Thank You Letter and Sandy's other great advice at Get Fully Funded.
“1. Respond to a donation quickly
Within 48 hours of receipt of the donation is ideal for getting that thank you letter in the mail. If that is impossible, aim for under a week. The sooner, the more impressed the donor will be, not to speak of being reassured that the donation got to you safely.
“2. Personalize your thank you
Personalize it with the donor's name, and write directly to the individual. Use personal pronouns and include information about the donor that you may know, such as how long they've been a donor, or that you enjoyed seeing them at the last annual event. Perhaps the donor has received an award or gotten a promotion. Feel free to add something about these events to your thank you letter.”
I would estimate that perhaps 30-40% of the organizations I have donated to over the years have not responded with a personal thank you letter.
It is absolutely crucial to do so, as this article from Nonprofit About.Com notes, with all the links at the jump.
An excerpt.
“Your thank you letter to a donor concludes one transaction but, more importantly, it is a bridge to future support. Get the thank you letter right, and you are well on your way to future fundraising success. Here are 10 tips for making that thank you letter just right. For more tips, I recommend Sandy Rees' Deepen Donor Relationships With a Power-Packed Thank You Letter and Sandy's other great advice at Get Fully Funded.
“1. Respond to a donation quickly
Within 48 hours of receipt of the donation is ideal for getting that thank you letter in the mail. If that is impossible, aim for under a week. The sooner, the more impressed the donor will be, not to speak of being reassured that the donation got to you safely.
“2. Personalize your thank you
Personalize it with the donor's name, and write directly to the individual. Use personal pronouns and include information about the donor that you may know, such as how long they've been a donor, or that you enjoyed seeing them at the last annual event. Perhaps the donor has received an award or gotten a promotion. Feel free to add something about these events to your thank you letter.”
Friday, June 3, 2011
Foundation Grants
They are an excellent source of funding, a perspective this article examines.
An excerpt.
“In 2009, according to Giving USA, foundations contributed 13% to the overall philanthropic pie, while individual giving accounted for 75% of it. It is wise for nonprofits to keep those proportions in mind when they are developing their annual fundraising plans.
“Although foundation grants are a small chunk of philanthropic giving, it is an important one, and most nonprofits do or will pursue those grants. The question is where they should look for grants, and how much time and energy they should pour into the grant seeking process.
“I asked three grants professionals for their opinions on two questions: 1) is there a recommended ratio of grants to other income for small nonprofits, and 2) where should small nonprofits look for grants?
“Here is what they said:
“April A. Northstrom, Jigsaw Communications, Inc, Savvy Grants Blog
"It is difficult to put an exact formula to the ratios that small, medium and large nonprofits 'should' depend on grant funding. My own belief, through experience and research is that any organization should not be more than 25% dependent on any type of grant funding.
"Funding from foundations and corporations is usually responsive to the economy and thus, just like with any investment, you don’t want all of your eggs in one basket. Even foundations don’t want you to be too dependent on their funds and usually like to see multiple funders supporting one project or program.”
An excerpt.
“In 2009, according to Giving USA, foundations contributed 13% to the overall philanthropic pie, while individual giving accounted for 75% of it. It is wise for nonprofits to keep those proportions in mind when they are developing their annual fundraising plans.
“Although foundation grants are a small chunk of philanthropic giving, it is an important one, and most nonprofits do or will pursue those grants. The question is where they should look for grants, and how much time and energy they should pour into the grant seeking process.
“I asked three grants professionals for their opinions on two questions: 1) is there a recommended ratio of grants to other income for small nonprofits, and 2) where should small nonprofits look for grants?
“Here is what they said:
“April A. Northstrom, Jigsaw Communications, Inc, Savvy Grants Blog
"It is difficult to put an exact formula to the ratios that small, medium and large nonprofits 'should' depend on grant funding. My own belief, through experience and research is that any organization should not be more than 25% dependent on any type of grant funding.
"Funding from foundations and corporations is usually responsive to the economy and thus, just like with any investment, you don’t want all of your eggs in one basket. Even foundations don’t want you to be too dependent on their funds and usually like to see multiple funders supporting one project or program.”
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Old School Still Works
Online fundraising is a great tool, but still is far outpaced by the old school method of direct mail, as this post from About.Com: Nonprofit Charitable Orgs reveals.
An excerpt.
“Multichannel giving has become a hot topic among fundraisers, with most of us assuming that we must fundraise through all available channels to reach our modern, multi-generational, and multi-tasking donors.
“The latest survey by Blackbaud helps unravel the clues about multichannel donors a bit more.
“Here's what I got from Blackbaud's recent survey:
• Nonprofits have generally embraced multi-channel fundraising as an objective.
• However, donors actually don't practice multi-channel giving as much as we might have thought. They typically give through one channel--direct mail.”
An excerpt.
“Multichannel giving has become a hot topic among fundraisers, with most of us assuming that we must fundraise through all available channels to reach our modern, multi-generational, and multi-tasking donors.
“The latest survey by Blackbaud helps unravel the clues about multichannel donors a bit more.
“Here's what I got from Blackbaud's recent survey:
• Nonprofits have generally embraced multi-channel fundraising as an objective.
• However, donors actually don't practice multi-channel giving as much as we might have thought. They typically give through one channel--direct mail.”
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Building an Endowment
It is one of the most sustaining strategies that a nonprofit can take—a good article about endowments here—and different from fundraising, the subject of this article from Contributions Magazine.
An excerpt.
“When it comes to fundraising, many charitable, academic, and religious organizations are incredibly skilled. Some of these organizations have instant name recognition. They regularly receive media coverage. And they pull in hundreds of thousands of dollars from supporters in annual fundraising efforts.
“There’s no doubt that successful fundraising is an acquired skill. It does not happen by chance. It’s the reason why organizations compete so intensely to hire persons with outstanding fundraising skills and a successful track record.
“Given that, it is somewhat baffling why so many of the organizations that are most successful in fundraising struggle when it comes to building an endowment. Other non-profits, meanwhile, seem to have struck a balance, building both highly effective fundraising efforts and endowments that rival the budgets of emerging nations. Why is that?
“It is important to recognize that there is an inherent conflict between annual fundraising objectives and building an endowment. On the fundraising side, all organizations have to balance their budgets. Virtually all strive to grow the services they offer and the number of people they serve. Senior executives of these organizations often have bonuses tied to annual fundraising objectives. Boards of directors and trustees want to accomplish certain goals and have an obligation to their donors and constituents to do so.
“Now add to this the fact that there are various non-profit certifications and standards, all of which tend to focus on annual fundraising, capital campaigns, board participation, and donor designations. An organization’s by-laws may even establish funding expectations.
“All of these annual organizational goals conflict with building endowments. Endowments represent a long-term commitment for an organization. Endowments take time to build with donations and earnings. And bottom line, executives, board members, supporters, donors, and other constituents tend to be impatient. They want to see tangible results NOW.
“Even in cases in which a non-profit has managed to build a substantial endowment, it’s often tempting to use endowment income or principal to meet current operating needs. Doing so, however, clearly inhibits growth and delays the endowment from providing its ultimate goals.”
An excerpt.
“When it comes to fundraising, many charitable, academic, and religious organizations are incredibly skilled. Some of these organizations have instant name recognition. They regularly receive media coverage. And they pull in hundreds of thousands of dollars from supporters in annual fundraising efforts.
“There’s no doubt that successful fundraising is an acquired skill. It does not happen by chance. It’s the reason why organizations compete so intensely to hire persons with outstanding fundraising skills and a successful track record.
“Given that, it is somewhat baffling why so many of the organizations that are most successful in fundraising struggle when it comes to building an endowment. Other non-profits, meanwhile, seem to have struck a balance, building both highly effective fundraising efforts and endowments that rival the budgets of emerging nations. Why is that?
“It is important to recognize that there is an inherent conflict between annual fundraising objectives and building an endowment. On the fundraising side, all organizations have to balance their budgets. Virtually all strive to grow the services they offer and the number of people they serve. Senior executives of these organizations often have bonuses tied to annual fundraising objectives. Boards of directors and trustees want to accomplish certain goals and have an obligation to their donors and constituents to do so.
“Now add to this the fact that there are various non-profit certifications and standards, all of which tend to focus on annual fundraising, capital campaigns, board participation, and donor designations. An organization’s by-laws may even establish funding expectations.
“All of these annual organizational goals conflict with building endowments. Endowments represent a long-term commitment for an organization. Endowments take time to build with donations and earnings. And bottom line, executives, board members, supporters, donors, and other constituents tend to be impatient. They want to see tangible results NOW.
“Even in cases in which a non-profit has managed to build a substantial endowment, it’s often tempting to use endowment income or principal to meet current operating needs. Doing so, however, clearly inhibits growth and delays the endowment from providing its ultimate goals.”
Friday, April 29, 2011
Inside Foundations
If you often approach foundations for funding, this excellent article from Stanford Social Innovation Review will be of interest to you.
An excerpt.
“Foundations often undermine their own efforts by micromanaging how social problems are solved. Two insiders explore why foundations have developed this way and what grant makers can do to foster high impact strategies.
“We would probably be better off as a society if the decision makers in the nation’s large private foundations took up surfing. Why? Because surfing is about letting go, and that’s what foundations must do to achieve higher impact. Surfing is incredibly humbling, an encounter with the enormous power, beauty, and unpredictability of the ocean. No surfer would attempt to change the shape of the waves or the schedule of the tides, because these forces are far beyond any one person’s control.
“But two common practices of major foundations—the design of specific solutions to social problems and the narrow focus on one pathway to a goal—are the equivalent of ordering the ocean to change shape. Just as men cannot control oceans, individual foundations cannot control social systems. Such an approach underestimates the vast power and complexity of the systems in which foundations are attempting to intervene.
“The strategic philanthropy movement has been a positive influence in recent years by encouraging foundations to clarify their goals and regularly evaluate their progress. But it has also fueled practices that undermine the nonprofit sector’s impact, rather than amplify it. Too often, funders insist on controlling the ways in which social problems are solved. This is a move in the wrong direction.
“To make steady forward progress solving problems in dynamic environments of complexity and uncertainty, foundations must shift from centrally planned, narrowly focused grantmaking strategies to more decentralized, diversified strategies that are better able to catch the waves of effective leadership, distributed wisdom, and innovation. There are two ways foundations need to let go. The first is to enable effective nonprofits to take the lead in designing solutions to social problems. The second is to diversify investments across multiple solutions or pathways to the goal. Let’s take a closer look at the problems with current practice in philanthropy.
“Problem #1: Foundation-Designed Solutions
“When solutions are centrally planned by people who are distanced from the real work in the field, the solutions are often poorly implemented. This is a classic principal-agent problem. The organizations tasked with implementation feel little ownership or passion for projects they didn’t dream up themselves. For example, in 2004 the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation made a grant to create the Legislative Education Project, as part of its California Education grant portfolio.1 The project was a response to term limits and the loss of institutional memory in the state legislature. It was intended to provide a nonpartisan professional development forum for legislative staff to learn about the history and current status of California education policy. The foundation developed the idea and then invited a respected university research center to implement it. Unfortunately, the researchers weren’t able to keep the legislative staff engaged and satisfied with the programming, nor did they respond aggressively enough to complaints from participants about an imbalance between liberal and conservative viewpoints. Eventually, the Republican legislative staff refused to participate, and those who did participate gave only lukewarm reviews of the sessions. The foundation considered the project a failure and did not renew the grant.”
An excerpt.
“Foundations often undermine their own efforts by micromanaging how social problems are solved. Two insiders explore why foundations have developed this way and what grant makers can do to foster high impact strategies.
“We would probably be better off as a society if the decision makers in the nation’s large private foundations took up surfing. Why? Because surfing is about letting go, and that’s what foundations must do to achieve higher impact. Surfing is incredibly humbling, an encounter with the enormous power, beauty, and unpredictability of the ocean. No surfer would attempt to change the shape of the waves or the schedule of the tides, because these forces are far beyond any one person’s control.
“But two common practices of major foundations—the design of specific solutions to social problems and the narrow focus on one pathway to a goal—are the equivalent of ordering the ocean to change shape. Just as men cannot control oceans, individual foundations cannot control social systems. Such an approach underestimates the vast power and complexity of the systems in which foundations are attempting to intervene.
“The strategic philanthropy movement has been a positive influence in recent years by encouraging foundations to clarify their goals and regularly evaluate their progress. But it has also fueled practices that undermine the nonprofit sector’s impact, rather than amplify it. Too often, funders insist on controlling the ways in which social problems are solved. This is a move in the wrong direction.
“To make steady forward progress solving problems in dynamic environments of complexity and uncertainty, foundations must shift from centrally planned, narrowly focused grantmaking strategies to more decentralized, diversified strategies that are better able to catch the waves of effective leadership, distributed wisdom, and innovation. There are two ways foundations need to let go. The first is to enable effective nonprofits to take the lead in designing solutions to social problems. The second is to diversify investments across multiple solutions or pathways to the goal. Let’s take a closer look at the problems with current practice in philanthropy.
“Problem #1: Foundation-Designed Solutions
“When solutions are centrally planned by people who are distanced from the real work in the field, the solutions are often poorly implemented. This is a classic principal-agent problem. The organizations tasked with implementation feel little ownership or passion for projects they didn’t dream up themselves. For example, in 2004 the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation made a grant to create the Legislative Education Project, as part of its California Education grant portfolio.1 The project was a response to term limits and the loss of institutional memory in the state legislature. It was intended to provide a nonpartisan professional development forum for legislative staff to learn about the history and current status of California education policy. The foundation developed the idea and then invited a respected university research center to implement it. Unfortunately, the researchers weren’t able to keep the legislative staff engaged and satisfied with the programming, nor did they respond aggressively enough to complaints from participants about an imbalance between liberal and conservative viewpoints. Eventually, the Republican legislative staff refused to participate, and those who did participate gave only lukewarm reviews of the sessions. The foundation considered the project a failure and did not renew the grant.”
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Innovation, Leadership & Funding
An excellent article from Harvard Business School exploring the intersection and articles like this always pose the question—though rarely in the article—what is truly innovative?
To be able to judge that, funders need enough expertise in their program areas to recognize a new idea, yet one based in the realities of the program environment, from a retread.
An excerpt.
“In order to garner the capital necessary to foot the bill for social change, nonprofits need to think less about traditional grants and more in terms of innovation--and so do the organizations that fund them.
“This was a key message from professional philanthropists as they explored "Social Investing: Emerging Trends in a Changing Landscape," a recent panel discussion hosted by Harvard Business School's Social Enterprise Initiative. They also touched on growing trends including venture philanthropy and social impact bonds.
"In general there's dissatisfaction with traditional philanthropy and a search for 'give us better practices,' " said Nancy Roob, president and CEO of the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF). Joining her on the panel were Matt Bannick (HBS MBA 1993), managing partner of Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment firm in Redwood City, California, and Mario Morino, cofounder and chairman of Venture Philanthropy Partners (VPP), based in Washington, D.C.
“Panelists agreed that the goal for philanthropy should be to help an organization scale to the point that it can sustain itself.
"I'm hearing an underlying common philosophy," said moderator Professor Herman "Dutch" Leonard, who serves as cochair of the Social Enterprise Initiative. "First, the focus is on impact. Second is taking that impact to scale. And the third element is that whatever is needed, that's what we'll do. Form follows function."
“The panelists explored the benefits and potential pitfalls of "venture philanthropy," the term for applying the techniques of venture capitalists in funding nonprofits and other socially focused organizations. The model differs from traditional grant-giving in that rather than simply writing checks to worthy applicants, venture philanthropists proactively find opportunities and develop them.
"A big part of the model is first seeking out the entrepreneur and the opportunity and then, and only then, figuring out what the capital mix is," said Omidyar Network's Bannick, a former senior executive at eBay. "We live in a world where entrepreneurship drives massive change in the private sector, and we feel that can be true in the social sector."
To be able to judge that, funders need enough expertise in their program areas to recognize a new idea, yet one based in the realities of the program environment, from a retread.
An excerpt.
“In order to garner the capital necessary to foot the bill for social change, nonprofits need to think less about traditional grants and more in terms of innovation--and so do the organizations that fund them.
“This was a key message from professional philanthropists as they explored "Social Investing: Emerging Trends in a Changing Landscape," a recent panel discussion hosted by Harvard Business School's Social Enterprise Initiative. They also touched on growing trends including venture philanthropy and social impact bonds.
"In general there's dissatisfaction with traditional philanthropy and a search for 'give us better practices,' " said Nancy Roob, president and CEO of the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (EMCF). Joining her on the panel were Matt Bannick (HBS MBA 1993), managing partner of Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment firm in Redwood City, California, and Mario Morino, cofounder and chairman of Venture Philanthropy Partners (VPP), based in Washington, D.C.
“Panelists agreed that the goal for philanthropy should be to help an organization scale to the point that it can sustain itself.
"I'm hearing an underlying common philosophy," said moderator Professor Herman "Dutch" Leonard, who serves as cochair of the Social Enterprise Initiative. "First, the focus is on impact. Second is taking that impact to scale. And the third element is that whatever is needed, that's what we'll do. Form follows function."
“The panelists explored the benefits and potential pitfalls of "venture philanthropy," the term for applying the techniques of venture capitalists in funding nonprofits and other socially focused organizations. The model differs from traditional grant-giving in that rather than simply writing checks to worthy applicants, venture philanthropists proactively find opportunities and develop them.
"A big part of the model is first seeking out the entrepreneur and the opportunity and then, and only then, figuring out what the capital mix is," said Omidyar Network's Bannick, a former senior executive at eBay. "We live in a world where entrepreneurship drives massive change in the private sector, and we feel that can be true in the social sector."
Monday, April 25, 2011
Criminal Justice Program Funding
For programs who work to help prisoners reentering society, a major source of federal funding for those efforts appears to be on track to receive almost as much funding as last year, as reported by the National Reentry Resource Center.
An excerpt.
“On Thursday the House passed the continuing resolution (CR) for the rest of the fiscal year by a 260-167 vote. The Senate followed quickly with a 81-19 vote, avoiding a government shutdown.
“All Department of Justice (DOJ) programs were cut by 17 percent. Several programs were exempt from this cut, including the Office of Violence Against Women, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Regional Information Sharing Systems, Justice for All, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s programs.
“Council of State Government Justice Center priority programs—the Second Chance Act program, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) program, and the Justice Reinvestment program—fall under state and local law enforcement assistance programs, which were cut by $434 million from the FY10 levels."
An excerpt.
“On Thursday the House passed the continuing resolution (CR) for the rest of the fiscal year by a 260-167 vote. The Senate followed quickly with a 81-19 vote, avoiding a government shutdown.
“All Department of Justice (DOJ) programs were cut by 17 percent. Several programs were exempt from this cut, including the Office of Violence Against Women, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Regional Information Sharing Systems, Justice for All, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s programs.
“Council of State Government Justice Center priority programs—the Second Chance Act program, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) program, and the Justice Reinvestment program—fall under state and local law enforcement assistance programs, which were cut by $434 million from the FY10 levels."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
